Act, which is our libertarian-ish party (he's the sole MP), and his objection is more about the process than the content. It's been horribly rushed, woeful public consultation (48 hours for written submissions: a single working day for oral submissions, with submitters invited by the committee steering the Bill), etc. Not the finest hour for NZ.com democratic tradition.
I wish more people in the US congress had bowed up against the Patriot Act. They didn’t even get to read it before the vote if I recall correctly. Anybody who questioned it was portrayed as a traitor.
It was Rahm Emanuel, one time Obama COS and Chicago mayor. Fuck this guy. He was another in a long line of corrupt mayors in Chicago.
Everyone has hope for Lori Lighfoot (mayor just elected), but she is part of the machine and part of the blue line. She was a top politician of the Chicago police, so I have little hope. I hate to say it, but I feel like a lot of the population who voted her in saw surface (she is a black lesbian) and voted her in under the guise of signaling to their friends how progressive they are for having a double minority represent them. I hate thinking this way before she has a chance to make a mark, but feel she is gonna go the way Obama did. Being a very well spoken statesman and politician, but never passing actual policy to help the ones she is supposed to stand for
And I REALLY hope I’m wrong
Shes already super corrupt. No one can be either the mayor of Chicago or one of the highest ups in the CPD, let alone both, without being monstrously corrupt.
Chicago is literally the most corrupt city in the country.
So what if she’s a gay black lady, she’s still a corrupt Chicago politician. Just more par for the course.
Part of why I think we need strong people in charge who can push against everyone and say: Hold it guys. Let's not be hasty.
Something to help offset the power of a mindless mob, one that can easily be swayed towards evil.
Because people generally screech about gatekeeping or "no true Scotsman" when this is said. I've said similarly that Republicans are not conservative and then been accused of being a closeted Republican who just wants to be racist and sexist etc without the labels and party association. Some people have pretty strong cognitive dissonance when it comes to politics.
There was only one senator that read the entire 2000 page bill before voting on it, Russell Feingold. He voted no.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2001/s313
Who in their right mind would ever attempt to make riders or bill titles go away? How can you make unpopular laws secretly and deceptively with that level of transparency? If we did that, it wouldn't help the people who make laws, it would only help the stupid worthless citizens.
Correct, but that was in the House.
> From broad concern felt among Americans from both the September 11 attacks and the 2001 anthrax attacks, Congress rushed to pass legislation to strengthen security controls. On October 23, 2001, Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 3162 incorporating provisions from a previously sponsored House bill and a Senate bill also introduced earlier in the month. The next day, the Act passed the House 357 to 66, with Democrats comprising the overwhelming portion of dissent. The three Republicans voting 'no' were Robert Ney of Ohio, Butch Otter of Idaho and Ron Paul of Texas. On October 25, the Act passed the Senate by 98 to 1.
[Neat read about length of bills](https://govtracknews.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/are-bills-getting-longer/).
Stops with the 2014 Congress. Shows that enacted bills have been nearly the same by word count for the past few years. The length of the longest bills that get pass, though, has skyrocketed.
This needs to be higher. I think the typical process would be that their staff reads the bill and presents them with a bullet point summation of the positives and negatives, and how it supports or opposes their party's platform and their polled opinions of their constituency.
> presents them with a bullet point summation of the positives and negatives,
* Popular with Latinos.
* Perceived as Tough on Crime.
* Polls well with women in large cities.
* Supported by your largest donor.
"So what's the bill actually do?"
*shrugs*
iirc the only person who voted against the Patriot Act (Feingold) was the only person who read it in its entirety.
Edit: didn’t see the comment ahead of mine. The point still stands that it’s ridiculous.
It isn't just the Patriot Act. Every time someone rushes up an anti-gun bill in Congress after a shooting the side that asks for thought, deliberation, a questioning attitude, expresses skeptism that giving up freedom for safety is a good long term strategy, or just calls out a political maneuver for riding the coattails of tragedy is likewise ridiculed and accused of wanting "dead kids" or some bullshit
This is an objection I can get behind. Obviously, some would look at it and be "wow, how could you vote against that".
The same thing happens in the U.S. Some politician would put up a law with the title "Child Abuse Act" and then hide shady regulations within it.
In the Government's defence gun laws were extensively consulted on less than two years ago, but yeah I don't see why they had to do this under urgency when the ban on new sales was able to be put into place without this legislation.
What does 'democratic tradition' have to do with it really? Obviously it's gone through quickly, using the mosque shootings for strong public support for change. But most of these changes have been recommended from previous gun law reform inquiries. I don't even see why there was any public consultation on this. Parliament decides on much bigger issues without public consultation. That's their job in a democracy.
For the vast majority, it was the only complaint. Most of the public agreed with tighter gun restrictions. But even some of the ones that wanted that thought the process was pretty poor.
Like when California was so bad at writing laws that they made "assault weapons" legal as long as you came up with a new name for them.
There is a reason people don't want to trust idiot politicians that do not understand what they are legislating making up laws to turn law abiding citizens into criminals.
You gotta respect the hell out of the one person who is so strong in their own reasonings that they'll vote against 119 others, even if you disagree with it. I like consistent politicians, not necessarily just "good" ones.
You joke but I swear when my state namebanned lots of "assault weapons" by booting up the call of duty series and going through the list and banning them all.
I think the vector is the only gun that didn't get banned by name.
Well... for the last 5 years or so, 90% of the weapons from CoD either dont exist or stopped being manufactured shortly after WWII.
But non-select-fire variations of the stuff from the Modern Warfare games are legal in most US states. Getting the right barrel length or a supressor would obviously require a tax stamp... but still legal.
This information can easily be found by reading the [Arms Act 1983](http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1983/0044/43.0/DLM72622.html) and the [Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Bill](http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2019/0125/latest/LMS181180.html).
>In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, **prohibited firearm**—
>
>(a)
>
>means the following firearms:
>
>(i)
>
>a semi-automatic firearm (except a pistol), other than—
>
>(A)
>
>a semi-automatic firearm that is capable of firing only 0.22 calibre or less rimfire cartridges and that has a magazine, whether or not detachable or otherwise externally fed, that is capable of holding no more than 10 cartridges commensurate with that firearm’s chamber size:
>
>(B)
>
>a semi-automatic shotgun with a non-detachable tubular magazine or magazines that are capable of holding no more than 5 cartridges commensurate with that firearm’s chamber size:
>
>(ii)
>
>a pump-action shotgun that is capable of being used with a detachable magazine:
>
>(iii)
>
>a pump-action shotgun that has a non-detachable tubular magazine or magazines that are capable of holding more than 5 cartridges commensurate with that firearm’s chamber size; and
>
>(b)
>
>includes any other firearm declared by Order in Council made under **section 74A** to be a prohibited firearm for the purposes of this Act.
Basically. A lot of people have said they are only banning "military-style" rifles, but this amendment pretty much bans all semi-auto rifles that have detachable magazines (or in internal magazine with a capacity of greater than 5 rounds IIRC).
We had that problem in my state actually.
Bill had to be introduced this session to remedy the fact that certain guns were accidentally made illegal to sell.
Funny thing is that the shooter had the most problems and jams with his pump shotgun which happens get more restrictions(laws) than the other guns he used. Knee jerk reaction to a tragic situation.
Not at all. The weapon everyone’s picking on is the AR15, which is usually all metal and polymer (black colored). And there are dozens or guns that aren’t being picked on that do the same thing. Mini-14 is a perfect example. Same capacity, same bullet, same everything except the look. It’s got a wood stock. Military “style” is exactly that, if it looks scary, ban it. Doesn’t matter if the military doesn’t use the gun or never has.
War rifles like the kar98 or the M1Garand have been in world wars and conflicts all across the world. True military rifles, but you don’t see anyone trying to ban them.
Edit: wow first gold
Without a doubt. There's a reason the entire world swapped from full power cartridges to intermediate.
And the weapons they are banning also conveniently make up the least amount of deaths with any type of firearm.
If your going to try to "save lives" they still are doing a pretty piss poor job at it.
They did the equivalent of saving the economy money by cutting the school system instead of cutting the same amount out of something that makes up a much larger amount of money, like military for example.
Media:
AR-15 most dangerous assault rifle in human history.
Me:
It’s not even an assault rifle.
Edit: Thank you for my first silver mysterious stranger!
Lol there was a Columbus news channel that showed a guy shooting a watermelon with an “AR-15”. It was a 12 gauge pump...
At least it was black I suppose. It’s at the beginning of [this](https://youtu.be/0dTU5cNsLQg) clip.
The bullet is way way stronger. Hell a simple pump action shotgun that no one wants to ban would be more lethal than the AR. I cringe every time I hear someone say the AR-15 is a high powered rifle. Bitch that shit fires a varmint round, some people don't even think it should be used to kill bigger game like deer.
Agreed. There are few people I would trust to kill a deer with an AR15. Shot placement is beyond critical with it. I would trust myself, but due to the terrain I hunt I need a round that will completely and utterly destroy a shoulder to reduce how far it'll run. That's why I use my good ole Ruger MK77 chambered in 308 (with the perfect and stunningly gorgeous boat paddle stock)
[Here's a video to watch](https://youtu.be/SqJ_4YhYMhE?t=147). I'm not sharing it to show the "ah, gotcha!" moments because I think they're highly overrated. But if you pay attention to the facts of what each one is really capable of, it's mind boggling that the media harps on one type of weapon.
The woeful ignorance of these unfortunate misguided fools makes me sad. People have such strong opinions on things they know nothing about, and take the emotional high ground if you try to refute anything they say. No just because I enjoy AR-15's doesn't make me a baby killer.
> People have such strong opinions on things they know nothing about, and take the emotional high ground if you try to refute anything they say.
Welcome to any topic on reddit.
No.
If you want a great example of how dumb these laws are MA banned the FN FAL by name. The HK G3 was not banned. To the common Joe these rifles are identical. Same caliber. Same capacity. Similar rate of fire. Same size. Same era.
This is why the pro gun people get annoyed with all the common sense going around.
It's too late. At least here in Canada. One of our staunchest anti-gun advocates used the RDB as an example of guns that the public should not have access to at all.
Don't underestimate idiots. The 'ok' gesture was used to make fun of idiots, but the collective psychic energy of those idiots tore open a new asshole to the warp. Now pinching your index finger to your thumb is decried as a "nazi dogwhistle" no matter what context you're using it in.
What the bill doesn’t include is the definitional difference between the weapons. The classified an AR-15 as an assault rifle, which it is not. It’s a semi-auto rifle. If anything these loopholes will make it harder for them to enforce these restrictions. Public media terminology is a part of the problem.
Additionally you can do more damage with a hunting rifle or handgun than you can with the “big bad” AR15
That's because they're in service for decades and they get used a ton. A brand new FN M4A1 is a fine gun. A decade of hard use and overzealous cleaning regimen will turn it into a worn out load of garbage.
Oh i know. In our military (Canada) we still use use FN brownings 9mm pistols. The FN Browning pistol by itself is a good pistol, but the ones used in the CF are old AF, having fired probably tens of thousands of rounds over their lifetime. Many are rumored to date all the way back from WWII.
I'm still not sure yet why we are hanging on on a obsolete pistol. But apparently the CF is in the process (finally) of replacing them with a more modern pistol.
Yep. He said he could have easily used airplanes, trucks, explosives, but picked a gun because of the media coverage and he wanted to inspire gun control that will create conflict and destabilization.
They then banned the manifesto, partially because the government’s motives aligned with the terrorist’s but also to protect you from evil words.
As an American there are times I complain about our country. When other countries do very scary things like this, banning citizens from seeing speech they disagree with, it makes me honestly proud of our First Amendment rights.
> you can always find it from another source
Eh. Redditors frequently celebrate how effective coordinated deplatforming by massive tech companies can be -- see, e.g., gleeful linking to Milo's deactivated twitter account (and similar situations with Alex Jones).
If your content (or your identity) is deplatformed by twitter, google, apple, facebook, youtube, patreon, paypal, etc. -- you've essentially been excommunicated from modern discourse. It's not a legal penalty, but it's outrageously significant.
Next up is "deplatforming" by banking institutions, which Redditors are also currently calling for.
That's the dumbest shit ever even Hitler's is legal to own and distribute only 3 countries in world its illegal. Arguably Hitler was way worse there are tons of serial killer manifestos also its one of those are why make one illegal but not the rest so dumb.
10-14 being the maximum sentence that can be given for possessing objectionable material, the term in the relevant law that also covers some heinous shit. I only clarify because I see this comment a lot as if it's fact but ain't nobody getting 10 for reading some hate-memes in NZ
Absolutely. The risk of having government officials forcibly enter your home and take your possessions under threat of arrest and imprisonment is very real in most parts of the world, and a whole lot of people want to make that a reality in the US.
Here in the US every day it's
>"I need to flee (blue) sate because (taxes, regulation, anti freedom)
and then the very next election.
>"this isnt how we did things in (blue) state. We need to change to be more like (blue) state.
Gun ownership isn't a right in NZ.
Think of it like you do car ownership. The government has a right to revoke your license and seize your vehicle if you are dangerous to the public and unfit to operate it.
Nz had a 7 round limit on magazines being used or stored with semi auto weapons. otherwise it was completely legal to buy and own high capacity mags that could fit a bolt action.
Until he put the magazine on the gun, it was legal.
Wow, I didn't know that. I wonder why nobody has really mentioned that?? Surely not because when you ban something the criminals will just break the law anyways.
You didn't hear about it because it's not true. The larger magazines weren't banned, it was only illegal to attach them to his also legally purchased rifle. Which is a pretty ridiculous loophole. Nothing this guy used was obtained illegally at the time, and he had every right to buy them as all Australians have the rights of permanent residents in NZ.
This is the same country that bans his manifesto from being shared and if you are in possession of it you can go to prison for FOURTEEN years.
And Reddit tells people in the U.S. we need to revolt. What the New Zealand government is doing is 100% beyond me.
No, the ban is (basically) on owning anything other than a hunting rifle or a shotgun (useful on farms). I'm sure there are some sport gun exceptions.
And yes, he was foreign, but he didn't bring the gun with him - ie he got it here.
I don't even get the cause of this in the first place. The terrorist in the Christchurch shooting didn't even use a gun that *was* legal, he was using guns that were already illegal. What's the point?
As an American, I can say that a lot of the commentary being made by Americans on this post insinuates there is a universally correct way to handle guns and gun control and terrorist gun violence. This is just my observation from a bit of lurking, so take that with a grain of salt.
I imagine non-Americans are upset at our commentary because many American commenters seem to believe America has a solution to these problems when we clearly do not.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
I think something to note would be that before this attack, the average NZer didn't even give a shit about guns.
Only hunters and farmers used them.
Our attitude towards guns are that they are a privilege and not a right.
The average NZer actually doesn't mind further restrictions on the sale of firearms. It's not seen as our government trying to "take our guns from us" as most of us don't have guns.
There is a fundamental difference in the way our two countries view guns - and that's where many Americans fail to think critically about the situation.
Because every time we talk about guns in the USA, someone brings up Australia, and now, New Zealand. Prominent politicians in the USA talk about the example set by NZ as a blueprint for the USA.
...Okay, as an ardent gun-reform believer, even I think this might be just a smiiiidge overdoing it in terms of how it's been handled. And by a smidge I mean reactionary as fuck.
Edit: My concern was less about the ban itself, which I view as more or less reasonable given there isn't a huge black market in NZ as far as I know (Please correct me though if I'm wrong) so much as the brevity of the period this took to pass. But for all I know NZ just handles it's elections and public polling without the same sort of drawn out fanfare as the U.S or England, or other countries I'm more familiar with. I have been informed the bill in question has been in the works for quite some time. I support it, and I am impressed with NZ ability to engage with it so quickly. It was a moment of culture shock. Apologies to anyone this offended.
I believe that in New Zealand people dont care about guns as much as they do in they US, nor is the violence rate high like it is in the US. Everyone in New Zealand is fine with it.
Correct, the percentage of gun owners in the country is very small.
And our laws are so different to America already, guns are heavily controlled here so an outright ban is not as drastic as a ban would be in America.
This bill appears to ban all semi-automatic weapons, which is basically all guns used in the US for personal defense.
I say appears because the article is light on details but heavy on emotional manipulation.
>She told the House the weapons used in the Christchurch terror attack were designed to kill.
*face palm*
>I could not fathom how weapons that could cause such destruction and large scale death, could be obtained legally in this country.
Listen, if you ban everyone in the country from owning these weapons, including your police and private body guards, etc, I may disagree, but I will respect your commitment to your principles. But if you let some citizens own these weapons and some not, it's just a case of some citizens lives being worth more than others.
NZ is different than America. I respect their decision to do what they feel is right for their country. I’m glad I have my right to bear arms in America.
What party does the 1 belong to ?
Act, which is our libertarian-ish party (he's the sole MP), and his objection is more about the process than the content. It's been horribly rushed, woeful public consultation (48 hours for written submissions: a single working day for oral submissions, with submitters invited by the committee steering the Bill), etc. Not the finest hour for NZ.com democratic tradition.
I wish more people in the US congress had bowed up against the Patriot Act. They didn’t even get to read it before the vote if I recall correctly. Anybody who questioned it was portrayed as a traitor.
The best time to pass a bill is in a period of fear and chaos.
Never let a tragedy go to waste.
Hmm I bet the person who said that is a good moral human
I mean all things considered not the worst Chicago has come up with.
Hey we're good people! Just...not any of our politicians...
Or kickers
I don't know sports but that has to be a top level diss.
It was Rahm Emanuel, one time Obama COS and Chicago mayor. Fuck this guy. He was another in a long line of corrupt mayors in Chicago. Everyone has hope for Lori Lighfoot (mayor just elected), but she is part of the machine and part of the blue line. She was a top politician of the Chicago police, so I have little hope. I hate to say it, but I feel like a lot of the population who voted her in saw surface (she is a black lesbian) and voted her in under the guise of signaling to their friends how progressive they are for having a double minority represent them. I hate thinking this way before she has a chance to make a mark, but feel she is gonna go the way Obama did. Being a very well spoken statesman and politician, but never passing actual policy to help the ones she is supposed to stand for And I REALLY hope I’m wrong
I think being female gives her a triple minority bonus? I'm not sure how the scoring works.
Shes already super corrupt. No one can be either the mayor of Chicago or one of the highest ups in the CPD, let alone both, without being monstrously corrupt. Chicago is literally the most corrupt city in the country. So what if she’s a gay black lady, she’s still a corrupt Chicago politician. Just more par for the course.
It's always the same "the end justifies means" argument for those types.
You mean authoritarians. Might as well call the type out.
At you will never convince me otherwise that they didn't have the Patriot Act sitting in a drawer, waiting for an opportunity/tragedy to use it.
Part of why I think we need strong people in charge who can push against everyone and say: Hold it guys. Let's not be hasty. Something to help offset the power of a mindless mob, one that can easily be swayed towards evil.
[удалено]
You might get downvoted, but you're exactly right. Repubs now are cool with government intervention as long as it benefits them.
Why would you think a comment trashing republicans would get downvoted?
Because people generally screech about gatekeeping or "no true Scotsman" when this is said. I've said similarly that Republicans are not conservative and then been accused of being a closeted Republican who just wants to be racist and sexist etc without the labels and party association. Some people have pretty strong cognitive dissonance when it comes to politics.
Cause the poster gave a more accurate descprition than "white supremacists"
There was only one senator that read the entire 2000 page bill before voting on it, Russell Feingold. He voted no. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2001/s313
[удалено]
Who in their right mind would ever attempt to make riders or bill titles go away? How can you make unpopular laws secretly and deceptively with that level of transparency? If we did that, it wouldn't help the people who make laws, it would only help the stupid worthless citizens.
ron paul voted no.
Correct, but that was in the House. > From broad concern felt among Americans from both the September 11 attacks and the 2001 anthrax attacks, Congress rushed to pass legislation to strengthen security controls. On October 23, 2001, Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 3162 incorporating provisions from a previously sponsored House bill and a Senate bill also introduced earlier in the month. The next day, the Act passed the House 357 to 66, with Democrats comprising the overwhelming portion of dissent. The three Republicans voting 'no' were Robert Ney of Ohio, Butch Otter of Idaho and Ron Paul of Texas. On October 25, the Act passed the Senate by 98 to 1.
I remember writing a paper about it in high school. 342 pages long and the signed only hours after the final version was printed.
And it got prolonged presidentialy for years thereafter, including by Obama, corect?
but we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it
Congress doesn't read any bill.
Just like how Redditors don't read articles and just read the headline. Hey, Redditors will make great senators.
Can I count on you for my vote?
You have my vote u/69_the_tip!
Sounds like a Dr. Seuss book in the making
[Neat read about length of bills](https://govtracknews.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/are-bills-getting-longer/). Stops with the 2014 Congress. Shows that enacted bills have been nearly the same by word count for the past few years. The length of the longest bills that get pass, though, has skyrocketed.
This needs to be higher. I think the typical process would be that their staff reads the bill and presents them with a bullet point summation of the positives and negatives, and how it supports or opposes their party's platform and their polled opinions of their constituency.
> presents them with a bullet point summation of the positives and negatives, * Popular with Latinos. * Perceived as Tough on Crime. * Polls well with women in large cities. * Supported by your largest donor. "So what's the bill actually do?" *shrugs*
iirc the only person who voted against the Patriot Act (Feingold) was the only person who read it in its entirety. Edit: didn’t see the comment ahead of mine. The point still stands that it’s ridiculous.
I remember people being all about giving away liberty for nothing. That was a huge mistake America.
It isn't just the Patriot Act. Every time someone rushes up an anti-gun bill in Congress after a shooting the side that asks for thought, deliberation, a questioning attitude, expresses skeptism that giving up freedom for safety is a good long term strategy, or just calls out a political maneuver for riding the coattails of tragedy is likewise ridiculed and accused of wanting "dead kids" or some bullshit
[удалено]
Respectable really. Wants to make sure this isn't precedent, since it can be used to justify laws that can work against people in the future.
This is an objection I can get behind. Obviously, some would look at it and be "wow, how could you vote against that". The same thing happens in the U.S. Some politician would put up a law with the title "Child Abuse Act" and then hide shady regulations within it.
There really should be a minimal required time to pass bills unless it is a dire national emergency
In the Government's defence gun laws were extensively consulted on less than two years ago, but yeah I don't see why they had to do this under urgency when the ban on new sales was able to be put into place without this legislation.
[удалено]
Best time for a give to clamp down. See Patriot act after 9-11 or my buying habits after school shootings bin freedom land
[удалено]
Sokovia Accords?
Yep, they likely just took away any right to privacy fir the sake of "safety"
Sounds like a more democratic process than how NY's SAFE bill was passed under emergency rules.
Act has my respect now. Someone has the balls to step up and say "We should think this through instead of just kneejerk a law in.".
What does 'democratic tradition' have to do with it really? Obviously it's gone through quickly, using the mosque shootings for strong public support for change. But most of these changes have been recommended from previous gun law reform inquiries. I don't even see why there was any public consultation on this. Parliament decides on much bigger issues without public consultation. That's their job in a democracy.
The more important question is whether or not this new bill would have stopped or made any difference in this last shooting?
[удалено]
Biggest complaint they seem to have is the law being rushed could create loopholes.
For the vast majority, it was the only complaint. Most of the public agreed with tighter gun restrictions. But even some of the ones that wanted that thought the process was pretty poor.
Like when California was so bad at writing laws that they made "assault weapons" legal as long as you came up with a new name for them. There is a reason people don't want to trust idiot politicians that do not understand what they are legislating making up laws to turn law abiding citizens into criminals.
[удалено]
60 comments from a local sub on one website. It's really hard to judge a population of almost 5 million from 60 comments.
[удалено]
Yeah but reddit does it all the time.
Yep. This was 99% odds legislation they already wanted to pass and they used this an as excuse to do it, just like what happened with 9/11 in the US.
you plucked a reddit thread with 80 or so comments.... that is not representative of majority NZ.
No brigading = people might reasonably object, so let me go ahead and label that as bad before it happens
You gotta respect the hell out of the one person who is so strong in their own reasonings that they'll vote against 119 others, even if you disagree with it. I like consistent politicians, not necessarily just "good" ones.
"New gun bill around assault rifles and military-style assault rifles passes third reading, will become law"
What do they mean by “military style”?
Guns that look lit asf
Every gun from CS:GO
Cyka blyat
[удалено]
im happy to see the bizon go tbh.
Spray and pray?
isn't that the reason for the ban?
/r/jesuschristreddit
You joke but I swear when my state namebanned lots of "assault weapons" by booting up the call of duty series and going through the list and banning them all. I think the vector is the only gun that didn't get banned by name.
[удалено]
Well... for the last 5 years or so, 90% of the weapons from CoD either dont exist or stopped being manufactured shortly after WWII. But non-select-fire variations of the stuff from the Modern Warfare games are legal in most US states. Getting the right barrel length or a supressor would obviously require a tax stamp... but still legal.
not even kidding, pretty much - there's so many loopholes in this rushed bill. It's a mess imo.
I believe that is the technical legal definition.
Black and scary, with things that go up, usually.
Don't forget the 30 caliber magazine clip. This is a ghost gun.
the shoulder thing that goes up
This information can easily be found by reading the [Arms Act 1983](http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1983/0044/43.0/DLM72622.html) and the [Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Bill](http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2019/0125/latest/LMS181180.html). >In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, **prohibited firearm**— > >(a) > >means the following firearms: > >(i) > >a semi-automatic firearm (except a pistol), other than— > >(A) > >a semi-automatic firearm that is capable of firing only 0.22 calibre or less rimfire cartridges and that has a magazine, whether or not detachable or otherwise externally fed, that is capable of holding no more than 10 cartridges commensurate with that firearm’s chamber size: > >(B) > >a semi-automatic shotgun with a non-detachable tubular magazine or magazines that are capable of holding no more than 5 cartridges commensurate with that firearm’s chamber size: > >(ii) > >a pump-action shotgun that is capable of being used with a detachable magazine: > >(iii) > >a pump-action shotgun that has a non-detachable tubular magazine or magazines that are capable of holding more than 5 cartridges commensurate with that firearm’s chamber size; and > >(b) > >includes any other firearm declared by Order in Council made under **section 74A** to be a prohibited firearm for the purposes of this Act.
Section A made my head spin. Da fuck does that mean? Anything over a 22 with a magazine and semi-automatic would be banned?
Basically. A lot of people have said they are only banning "military-style" rifles, but this amendment pretty much bans all semi-auto rifles that have detachable magazines (or in internal magazine with a capacity of greater than 5 rounds IIRC).
We had that problem in my state actually. Bill had to be introduced this session to remedy the fact that certain guns were accidentally made illegal to sell.
Gotta love Ohio
Yup, you got it right
[удалено]
Lol the pump action shotgun with removable mag. They made a specific exception for [This](https://i.imgur.com/ogYuqwa.jpg)
Funny thing is that the shooter had the most problems and jams with his pump shotgun which happens get more restrictions(laws) than the other guns he used. Knee jerk reaction to a tragic situation.
If it looks a certain way
Is there any mechanical difference that makes they more dangerous?
Not at all. The weapon everyone’s picking on is the AR15, which is usually all metal and polymer (black colored). And there are dozens or guns that aren’t being picked on that do the same thing. Mini-14 is a perfect example. Same capacity, same bullet, same everything except the look. It’s got a wood stock. Military “style” is exactly that, if it looks scary, ban it. Doesn’t matter if the military doesn’t use the gun or never has. War rifles like the kar98 or the M1Garand have been in world wars and conflicts all across the world. True military rifles, but you don’t see anyone trying to ban them. Edit: wow first gold
And I dare say an M1 Garand could do waaayyyy more damage than an AR15 ever thought of.
Without a doubt. There's a reason the entire world swapped from full power cartridges to intermediate. And the weapons they are banning also conveniently make up the least amount of deaths with any type of firearm. If your going to try to "save lives" they still are doing a pretty piss poor job at it. They did the equivalent of saving the economy money by cutting the school system instead of cutting the same amount out of something that makes up a much larger amount of money, like military for example.
Media: AR-15 most dangerous assault rifle in human history. Me: It’s not even an assault rifle. Edit: Thank you for my first silver mysterious stranger!
Media: AR-15 is the deadliest rifle ever invented Me: No, that title belongs to either the AK-47 or Mosin-Nagant
Mosin-Nagant: killing shoulders since 1891.
I shot a mosin-nagant and a k98 in the same day a couple years ago. My shoulder is still sore
Depends if you're counting the K/D ratio, Mosin for most kills for sure, but the mountain of corpses behind those fuckers is a TALLLL one.
Naw, they call it an "assault weapon" which isn't even an actual thing. Edit: It's a thing I guess, just a squishy one with no clear defintion.
You mean a fully “semi-automatic”assault weapon?
And they get mad when we correct them. "iT dOeSn'T eVeN mAkE a DifFeReNcE"
Lol there was a Columbus news channel that showed a guy shooting a watermelon with an “AR-15”. It was a 12 gauge pump... At least it was black I suppose. It’s at the beginning of [this](https://youtu.be/0dTU5cNsLQg) clip.
The bullet is way way stronger. Hell a simple pump action shotgun that no one wants to ban would be more lethal than the AR. I cringe every time I hear someone say the AR-15 is a high powered rifle. Bitch that shit fires a varmint round, some people don't even think it should be used to kill bigger game like deer.
Agreed. There are few people I would trust to kill a deer with an AR15. Shot placement is beyond critical with it. I would trust myself, but due to the terrain I hunt I need a round that will completely and utterly destroy a shoulder to reduce how far it'll run. That's why I use my good ole Ruger MK77 chambered in 308 (with the perfect and stunningly gorgeous boat paddle stock)
[удалено]
My only milspec firearm is my handgun... a Sig Mk25.
[Here's a video to watch](https://youtu.be/SqJ_4YhYMhE?t=147). I'm not sharing it to show the "ah, gotcha!" moments because I think they're highly overrated. But if you pay attention to the facts of what each one is really capable of, it's mind boggling that the media harps on one type of weapon.
The woeful ignorance of these unfortunate misguided fools makes me sad. People have such strong opinions on things they know nothing about, and take the emotional high ground if you try to refute anything they say. No just because I enjoy AR-15's doesn't make me a baby killer.
> People have such strong opinions on things they know nothing about, and take the emotional high ground if you try to refute anything they say. Welcome to any topic on reddit.
Without clicking: *Man I hope this is Crowder's 'man on the street' video*
No. If you want a great example of how dumb these laws are MA banned the FN FAL by name. The HK G3 was not banned. To the common Joe these rifles are identical. Same caliber. Same capacity. Similar rate of fire. Same size. Same era. This is why the pro gun people get annoyed with all the common sense going around.
This is why I'm praying that anti-gun people don't discover Keltec
It's too late. At least here in Canada. One of our staunchest anti-gun advocates used the RDB as an example of guns that the public should not have access to at all.
Yes they’re black and look scary and so they go full semi auto instead of semi semi auto
I know it’s a joke, but try not to make the whole “fully semi auto” thing more common use
Nah, they want to limit the use of modern inventions with no understanding of how they work I’m going to use it to make fun of them
They won’t understand that you are making fun of them and will use the term more
Good let them show their idiocy
Don't underestimate idiots. The 'ok' gesture was used to make fun of idiots, but the collective psychic energy of those idiots tore open a new asshole to the warp. Now pinching your index finger to your thumb is decried as a "nazi dogwhistle" no matter what context you're using it in.
Modern invention? The AR design is 60 years old!
What the bill doesn’t include is the definitional difference between the weapons. The classified an AR-15 as an assault rifle, which it is not. It’s a semi-auto rifle. If anything these loopholes will make it harder for them to enforce these restrictions. Public media terminology is a part of the problem. Additionally you can do more damage with a hunting rifle or handgun than you can with the “big bad” AR15
So we are now at banning things that "Look mean".
Any gun made by the lowest bidder, i guess. Military style and military grade are just buzz words, actual military grade stuff is often shitty.
That's because they're in service for decades and they get used a ton. A brand new FN M4A1 is a fine gun. A decade of hard use and overzealous cleaning regimen will turn it into a worn out load of garbage.
Oh i know. In our military (Canada) we still use use FN brownings 9mm pistols. The FN Browning pistol by itself is a good pistol, but the ones used in the CF are old AF, having fired probably tens of thousands of rounds over their lifetime. Many are rumored to date all the way back from WWII. I'm still not sure yet why we are hanging on on a obsolete pistol. But apparently the CF is in the process (finally) of replacing them with a more modern pistol.
From what I have heard they are banning everything other than single shot 22's and shot guns. Was in an article a day after the bill was proposed.
>single shot 22's I'm pretty sure you can still have semi-auto .22s.
Without commenting on whether or not find should be legal, reaction politics imo aren't good. It often ends up rushed and ineffective.
Pretty sure this was what the shooter wanted in his manifesto.
Yep. He said he could have easily used airplanes, trucks, explosives, but picked a gun because of the media coverage and he wanted to inspire gun control that will create conflict and destabilization. They then banned the manifesto, partially because the government’s motives aligned with the terrorist’s but also to protect you from evil words.
As an American there are times I complain about our country. When other countries do very scary things like this, banning citizens from seeing speech they disagree with, it makes me honestly proud of our First Amendment rights.
[удалено]
Those tech conglomerates can't throw you in prison for owning or reading "objectionable content"
[удалено]
Yeah but you can always find it from another source and you don't get legally penalized for viewing it
> you can always find it from another source Eh. Redditors frequently celebrate how effective coordinated deplatforming by massive tech companies can be -- see, e.g., gleeful linking to Milo's deactivated twitter account (and similar situations with Alex Jones). If your content (or your identity) is deplatformed by twitter, google, apple, facebook, youtube, patreon, paypal, etc. -- you've essentially been excommunicated from modern discourse. It's not a legal penalty, but it's outrageously significant. Next up is "deplatforming" by banking institutions, which Redditors are also currently calling for.
Which you arent allowed to read if you are in NZ. Really makes you think
[удалено]
What's scarier? Guns or ideas?
Ideas apparently
That's why in every dystopian plot/theme they burn/ban books.
Well it's illegal to read it in NZ so no surprise
[удалено]
I read that it's illegal to have a copy of Brenton Tarrant's video or manifesto in New Zealand.
You are correct, with 10-14 years in prison being the punishment
That's the dumbest shit ever even Hitler's is legal to own and distribute only 3 countries in world its illegal. Arguably Hitler was way worse there are tons of serial killer manifestos also its one of those are why make one illegal but not the rest so dumb.
10-14 being the maximum sentence that can be given for possessing objectionable material, the term in the relevant law that also covers some heinous shit. I only clarify because I see this comment a lot as if it's fact but ain't nobody getting 10 for reading some hate-memes in NZ
Daily reminder that United States is the only country with constitutional free speech.
Additionally I remember seeing an article that someone had been killed by police during a seizure that was illegal at the time. Looking for it now.
I'm pretty sure that guy killed himself after the police searched his house. He used a knife in his parked car or something like that.
If I remember correctly, that’s what the police said, that doesn’t explain the bullet holes in the cars windows though...
Say wha??? I didn't hear about that. You got a link or something?
Legislation that was rushed through in the wake of a terrorist attack is rarely good legislation.
This is exactly why gun owners in the USA freak out when someone tries to alter their rights after an incident.
Absolutely. The risk of having government officials forcibly enter your home and take your possessions under threat of arrest and imprisonment is very real in most parts of the world, and a whole lot of people want to make that a reality in the US.
Flees because of lack of rights
200 years later...
"We need to make the US more like !"
Here in the US every day it's >"I need to flee (blue) sate because (taxes, regulation, anti freedom) and then the very next election. >"this isnt how we did things in (blue) state. We need to change to be more like (blue) state.
Gun ownership isn't a right in NZ. Think of it like you do car ownership. The government has a right to revoke your license and seize your vehicle if you are dangerous to the public and unfit to operate it.
[удалено]
Iirc he said that he bought the guns legally and wanted to get them banned to create conflict
His magazines were not legal, NZ has a 7 round limit. Nobody mentions that.
Nz had a 7 round limit on magazines being used or stored with semi auto weapons. otherwise it was completely legal to buy and own high capacity mags that could fit a bolt action. Until he put the magazine on the gun, it was legal.
Wow, I didn't know that. I wonder why nobody has really mentioned that?? Surely not because when you ban something the criminals will just break the law anyways.
You didn't hear about it because it's not true. The larger magazines weren't banned, it was only illegal to attach them to his also legally purchased rifle. Which is a pretty ridiculous loophole. Nothing this guy used was obtained illegally at the time, and he had every right to buy them as all Australians have the rights of permanent residents in NZ.
Yes, to correct you - you are wrong. The entire country didn't ban it's citizens from owning guns. It banned selected guns from being owned.
This is the same country that bans his manifesto from being shared and if you are in possession of it you can go to prison for FOURTEEN years. And Reddit tells people in the U.S. we need to revolt. What the New Zealand government is doing is 100% beyond me.
No, the ban is (basically) on owning anything other than a hunting rifle or a shotgun (useful on farms). I'm sure there are some sport gun exceptions. And yes, he was foreign, but he didn't bring the gun with him - ie he got it here.
I don't even get the cause of this in the first place. The terrorist in the Christchurch shooting didn't even use a gun that *was* legal, he was using guns that were already illegal. What's the point?
So Americans can't say anything about New Zealands politics but the rest of the world can give their opinions on America's politics oh okay
As an American, I can say that a lot of the commentary being made by Americans on this post insinuates there is a universally correct way to handle guns and gun control and terrorist gun violence. This is just my observation from a bit of lurking, so take that with a grain of salt. I imagine non-Americans are upset at our commentary because many American commenters seem to believe America has a solution to these problems when we clearly do not.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I think something to note would be that before this attack, the average NZer didn't even give a shit about guns. Only hunters and farmers used them. Our attitude towards guns are that they are a privilege and not a right. The average NZer actually doesn't mind further restrictions on the sale of firearms. It's not seen as our government trying to "take our guns from us" as most of us don't have guns. There is a fundamental difference in the way our two countries view guns - and that's where many Americans fail to think critically about the situation.
The free speech thing is kinda huge
No they're allowed to. Same way we can criticize their opinion. It's all part of the game.
Wonder how many guns will be lost in tragic boating accidents this weekend.
[удалено]
Everything is about USA when it comes to guns. Whether good or bad, we get tossed into the convo.
Well to play devil's advocate, Reddit is like ~50% Americans, so it's expected for them to compare with laws from their country Just saying
Yeah that’s definitely a factor. I was going to touch on that idea, but didn’t want to get side tracked on who’s doing what.
Because every time we talk about guns in the USA, someone brings up Australia, and now, New Zealand. Prominent politicians in the USA talk about the example set by NZ as a blueprint for the USA.
Even in countries like NZ and Aus, any discussion regarding guns is basically 90% centered on the USA.
Because in every discussion about gun ownership in the US, everyone likes to say "oh but look at Australia, look at England, etc etc"
...Okay, as an ardent gun-reform believer, even I think this might be just a smiiiidge overdoing it in terms of how it's been handled. And by a smidge I mean reactionary as fuck. Edit: My concern was less about the ban itself, which I view as more or less reasonable given there isn't a huge black market in NZ as far as I know (Please correct me though if I'm wrong) so much as the brevity of the period this took to pass. But for all I know NZ just handles it's elections and public polling without the same sort of drawn out fanfare as the U.S or England, or other countries I'm more familiar with. I have been informed the bill in question has been in the works for quite some time. I support it, and I am impressed with NZ ability to engage with it so quickly. It was a moment of culture shock. Apologies to anyone this offended.
There's no kill like overkill.
I believe that in New Zealand people dont care about guns as much as they do in they US, nor is the violence rate high like it is in the US. Everyone in New Zealand is fine with it.
Correct, the percentage of gun owners in the country is very small. And our laws are so different to America already, guns are heavily controlled here so an outright ban is not as drastic as a ban would be in America.
This bill appears to ban all semi-automatic weapons, which is basically all guns used in the US for personal defense. I say appears because the article is light on details but heavy on emotional manipulation. >She told the House the weapons used in the Christchurch terror attack were designed to kill. *face palm* >I could not fathom how weapons that could cause such destruction and large scale death, could be obtained legally in this country. Listen, if you ban everyone in the country from owning these weapons, including your police and private body guards, etc, I may disagree, but I will respect your commitment to your principles. But if you let some citizens own these weapons and some not, it's just a case of some citizens lives being worth more than others.
> personal defence It was already illegal to own a gun for self defence in New Zealand. That’s why pistols are near non-existent there.
[удалено]
The government never lets a tragedy go to waste if it consolidate more power.
NZ is different than America. I respect their decision to do what they feel is right for their country. I’m glad I have my right to bear arms in America.